HACIA UN ”MODELO EUDAIMÓNICO” DE BIOÉTICA

Governmentality is Foucault’s conception of how various techniques, structures and practices come together to control or influence people’s behaviour in line with “particular sets of norms and with a variety of ends” (Dean, 2010, p. 18). Foucault (2002) refers to governmentality as “structur[ing] the possible field of action of others” (p. 341), which means, in this study, both the power of the performativity discourse to influence and control learning advisors and the power of advisors to influence and control themselves and others (Foucault, 1982). Individuals control themselves in relation to a particular discourse by engaging in practices Foucault calls technologies of the self. Foucault (1988) defines technologies of the self as practices individuals take up to shape themselves according to a particular discourse and which can be compliant or resistant (Taylor, 2011). Learning advisors shape themselves to the discourse of

performativity in order to be discursively included.

Governmentality is all about governing people through “a subtle integration of coercion-technologies and self-technologies” (Foucault, 2007, p. 155) and is complex, widespread and exercised through intertwined systems and power relationships within and between organisations and individuals. The organisations within which learning advisors work require self-governing individuals who form themselves in accordance with the performativity discourse and enact its norms at the personal level.

The individual is of major interest to Foucault (1982), particularly how the individual fashions themselves as a subject within particular discourses – “how the subject

105

constitutes itself in an active fashion through practices of the self” (Foucault, 1997b, p. 291). Foucault argues there is no essential subject already formed. He emphasises that the subject is not something people are or a state they occupy; rather, it is something they do – activities they perform (McGushin, 2011). The subject does not exist outside its context but is firmly embedded within its historical, social and cultural context (Foucault, 1982) and produced by the organisations, structures, norms and values of those contexts (Taylor, 2011).

Foucault’s notion of the subject is a powerful concept through which to consider how learning advisors, in tactical enacting,fashionthemselves in relation to the discourse of performativity. What is expected of them and what do they expect of themselves? How do they constitute and understand themselves within the discourse; how do they legitimise themselves? Do they use performativity to create new subject positions for themselves? Do they “refuse what [they] are … imagine and build up what [they] could be” (Foucault, 1982, p. 788)?

Foucault’s concept of governmentality and notion of the subject can be appropriately applied to a discussion of the grounded theory because of their ability to expose how in tactical enacting, learning advisors might come to regard performativity as

reasonable and workable, engage in its practices, rationalise their own behaviour and attempt to influence others’.

Ethics

Foucault’s concept of governmentality is closely related to his understanding of ethics. Foucauldian ethics is about the relationship of self to self and how advisors constitute themselves as moral subjects by their actions (Foucault, 1997a). In this discussion I locate ethics within Foucault’s concept of governmentality because of its concern with practices of the self as well as with practices of governing others (Dean, 2010). While these practices or technologies of the self (Foucault, 1988) act in a different way and do not supersede the disciplinary power of performativity, they still function as a form of

106

governmentality because the disciplinary power of performativity is not the only way advisors are governed (Foucault, 1997c).

Foucault’s concept of governmentality makes space for the formation of the ethical subject in that the concept makes it possible to “bring out the freedom of the subject and its relationship to others … the very stuff of ethics” (Foucault as cited in Rabinow, 1997, p. xvii). The link between the relationship an individual has with themselves and the governing of others can be applied in this analysis to help understand the

relationship of the learning advisor to themselves, their students and their colleagues. In order not to dominate others, advisors must think about what it means to be an ethical professional. The ethical professional is “one who exercises his [sic] power as it ought to be exercised, that is, simultaneously exercising his power over himself. And it is the power over oneself that thus regulates one’s power over others” (Foucault, 1997b, p. 288).

Foucault’s understanding of ethics is acutely relevant to a discussion of the grounded theory of tactical enacting. Learning advisors’ education work is a moral activity (Pring, 2004); they have a code of practice and set of expectations related to their work and make moral decisions in respect to these every day. Applying Foucault’s

understanding of ethics to the grounded theory allows an in-depth examination of how in tactical enacting learning advisors make sense of their professional selves and how this process shapes their actions. Do advisors make decisions and act in ways

determined only by the power relations of the performativity discourse in which they emerge (Lynch, 2011)? How do learning advisors respond to the discourse which disciplines and normalises them?

Foucault (1986b) describes five components of ethics: ethical substance, modes of subjection, self-forming activity, telos and ethos. Ethical substance in this discussion is defined as professional behaviour; more specifically, professional behaviour associated with moral action. Modes of subjection are the standards of behaviour learning

107

relationships and the extent to which advisors meet needs and expectations as reflected by student, colleague and organisational appreciation and approval.

The third component of Foucault’s ethics, self-forming activity, relates to all the activities learning advisors carry out on themselves to ensure they perform their role ethically in line with the standards of behaviour they apply to themselves. These same standards also apply to telos, the fourth component of Foucault’s ethical framework. Telos in this discussion relates to the sort of professional a learning advisor wishes to be. Thinking about and working on the sort of professional the advisor wishes to be helps them act ethically.

The fifth component of Foucault’s understanding of ethics applied in this discussion is that of ethos. Ethos is “a way of being and behaviour” (Foucault, 1997b, p. 286) and is closely related to the concepts of telos and modes of subjection. Ethos is not action on the self (self-forming activity); rather, it is the visible manifestation of how learning advisors believe they should perform – how they appear and act publicly. In being so, ethos is a way advisors govern themselves – how they rationalise their performance in relation to the standards they set for themselves.

Applying Foucault’s ethics to the discussion ofthe grounded theorywill uncover whether or not learning advisors, in tactical enacting, resist the discourse of

performativity, define and perform “acceptable forms of existence” (Foucault, 1997b, p. 283) and avoid “being governed quite so much” (Foucault, 2003, p. 265).

This first section of the chapter has presented a brief overview of, rather than an

extensive engagement with, the key Foucauldian concepts used to frame the discussion which follows. The section has also provided justification for the use of these concepts by explaining specifically how each concept can be meaningfully applied to the discussion of the grounded theory of tactical enacting to achieve a more nuanced understanding of the grounded theory and its connection to the context within which it is enacted.

108

The chapter now turns to a discussion of the grounded theory via the application to the grounded theory of an analytical framework related to Foucault’s concept of

governmentality. The discussion uncovers governmentality in action and focuses on the way learning advisors, in tactical enacting,governthemselves in the

performativity organisation within which they work. In governing themselves, advisors are not just subjects of the performativity discourse (hereafter referred to as performativity) they are active producers of their performativity identity and

behaviour.